You are here

International Day of Older Persons - Age is still the biggest indicator of who is digitally excluded

Published 01/10/2021

SHARE THIS

(01 October 2021) 65% of People Over the Age of 65 Experience Digital Exclusion in Ireland

At least 466,000 people over the age of 65 experience digital exclusion in Ireland, meaning that they are not using the internet or they lack the digital devices or necessary skills to navigate the internet safely, and therefore are limited in their ability to access public services online. Digital exclusion restricts people’s access to their rights and affects their quality of life. Age Action released their report, Digital Inclusion and Ageing Population, to coincide with United Nations International Day of Older Persons on 1 October which is highlighting Digital Equity for All Ages.

 

‘While factors such as income and levels of education play a part, age is still the biggest indicator of who is digitally excluded. Digital exclusion has a large impact on people’s ability to access services and information, to stay independent for longer, to save money, to participate in the development of national policy, to teach and learn skills, and to stay connected to community, culture and news. Older people are at risk of being left behind unless active steps are taken to ensure their inclusion, including through non-digital forms of communication’ said Celine Clarke, Head of Advocacy and Communications at Age Action.

Over the last 13 years, most people in Ireland have adopted internet use. However, an estimated 11% of adults were not using the internet in 2020.[1] The proportion of adults not using the internet includes one in four (25%) people aged 60-74 and more than half (56%) of people aged 75 or older. This implies that approximately 275,000 people over the age of 65 are not using the internet at all. Of those people aged 65-74 who are online, 43% have digital skills below basic levels and only 6% have “above basic” digital skills.[2] When the number not using the internet is added to the number (over 190,000) with below basic digital skills, the total of digitally excluded older people is conservatively estimated as over 466,000 or 65% of all older people.

Age Action is calling for the creation of a Communications Allowance in Budget 2022 to help cover the cost of access to the internet for people on low fixed incomes. Budget 2022 should also provide sufficient funding for all public services to adequately staff alternatives to digital modes of communication to mitigate digital exclusion in addition to expanded funding for digital skills training.

‘A ‘Digital First’ approach should not mean a ‘Digital Only’ approach. Publicly funded services should not make a naïve assumption that all older people have adult children who can assist them or that they would want that.  A rights-based approach must enable the capacity of individuals to live independently and to maintain their privacy. As a result of being forced to do their business online, a large proportion of older people lose independence and are required to divulge their private information to others. A lack of understanding of technical terms may also hamper a person’s capacity to give meaningful consent to terms and conditions and put people at risk of online fraud’ said Clarke.

 

ENDS

 

[1] Based on the proportion of each age cohort who have not used the internet in the last three months (https://data.cso.ie/table/ICA78).

[2] Eurostat (2019) Digital skills: Individuals’ level of digital skills. [isoc_sk_dskl_i] Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/digital-economy-and-society/data/database 

SHARE THIS

The new Bill is an inadequate response to the growing demand for the abolition of mandatory retirement.

According to Dr Nat O’Connor, Age Action’s Senior Policy Adviser: “Age Action strongly opposes the revival of the Employment (Restriction of Certain Mandatory Retirement Ages). Bill 2024, which is an inadequate response to the growing demand for the abolition of mandatory retirement.”

“Across political parties, in unions and among older persons, we see support for ending the practice of forcing people out of work before they are ready, but the proposed Bill makes no meaningful progress toward that end. The aim set out in its title, to restrict certain mandatory retirement ages, betrays its lack of ambition. All it provides for is the establishment of a complex, formal procedure so that employees can make a written request to stay on past their contractual retirement age; a request which can still be denied by their employer. This is the sole ‘restriction’ the Bill would impose on mandatory retirement.”

“This is a weak and ineffective Bill which is unlikely to help most employees who are forced out of work against their will for the offence of reaching a certain birthday. There is no reason for such timid action when we have seen other countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the UK, and the United States abolish mandatory retirement entirely, in some cases decades ago. These countries have continued to enjoy well-functioning and productive labour markets and workplaces, showing that there is no foundation for the fears expressed by people who want to keep mandatory retirement.”

“Mandatory retirement is age discrimination. If the State allows a form of discrimination to be practiced, it must set out clear justifications for the practice. However, the popular arguments in favour of mandatory retirement are all myths. There is no evidence that older persons are less able to contribute to a workplace, or that they cost more than they contribute, or that they prevent younger workers from gaining employment. In fact, research has demonstrated the many benefits older workers bring to workplaces, including institutional experience, mentoring, and soft skills like better stress management.”

“Mandatory retirement is based on gross and insulting stereotypes about ageing. It is experienced by workers as a humiliating and dehumanizing injustice. It takes away our autonomy and our control over how and when we retire, which is a major life event. People who had no choice in retiring report poorer mental health, life satisfaction, health status, dietary habits, marital satisfaction, self-efficacy, and income adequacy, even years into their retirement.”

Dr. O’Connor concluded: “The proposed Bill is an incomplete and inadequate response to the problem of mandatory retirement, and by virtue of its incompleteness, reinforces and legitimises the dangerous ageism on which mandatory retirement is founded. We want our new government to take strong and decisive action, rather than tinkering around the edges of a serious problem. The Bill needs to be abandoned in favour of legislation that really helps the workers who wish to remain in work for longer.”

Churn:
It is not reasonable to suggest that the abolition of mandatory retirement would create a large problem for companies, when the scale of churn in the labour market is already far higher. The Irish labour market experienced 12.8% churn in quarter 3 of 2024, meaning that 1 in 8 jobs were created, abolished or vacated during this period, which was 365,750 jobs (Central Statistics Office 2024).

Compared to this level of hiring and resignations, managing the relatively small number of older workers who may seek to work longer or whose productivity may fall in older age is a much smaller human resources management issue for companies.

CSO (2024) Labour Market Churn Q3 2024 https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/fp/fp-lmc/labourmarketchurnq32024/

Age Action’s detailed policy paper outlining the case against mandatory retirement can be accessed here: https://www.ageaction.ie/sites/default/files/age_action_paper_abolish_mandatory_retirement.pdf